Respond to one of these prompts and be clear about which one you are referring to:
And please also provide critical feedback to these two people’s posts.
PROMPT #1: LOTTERY PARADOX: People speak about their own and other people’s beliefs both in categorical terms and in terms of degrees. Philosophers accordingly distinguished between an epistemology of belief and an epistemology of degrees of belief. How are the two epistemologies connected? According to the standard view – called the Lockean thesis –, it is rational to believe proposition p if and only if it is rational to believe p to a degree above φ, where φ is some threshold value close to 1. While the Lockean thesis appears plausible on its face, some have argued that the lottery paradox disproves it. Explain how the lottery paradox conflicts with the Lockean thesis. Do you have ideas on how to connect the epistemology of belief and the epistemology of degrees of belief?
PROMPT #2: PREDICTION PARADOX: Explain the role the KK-thesis is said to play in the unexpected exam paradox. Do you agree that the unexpected exam paradox rests on the KK-thesis? Do you accept the KK-thesis? Explain your answers.
PROMPT #3: CONFIRMATION PARADOX: What, if anything, is problematic about claiming that a brown shoe confirms the hypothesis that all ravens are black? What is your favorite solution to the paradox of the ravens and why.
PROMPT #3: CONFIRMATION PARADOX
The problem is the assertion that “all crows are black” is logically equivalent to “all things that are not black are not crows.” If we observe a brown shoe, it is not black, nor a crow, then this observation will increase our trust in “all things that are not black are not crows.” In this way, it is more convinced that “all crows are black.”
There are two ways to judge that “all crows are black.” One is to check each crow, and the other is to check all things that are not black. For me, it’s more realistic to do the first way since the previous set is much smaller than the latter, the first evidence can increase the credibility of the conclusion faster, and the contribution of the second evidence to credibility is too tiny. Obviously it is easier to find all the crow rather than find everything that is not black nor crow in the world.
ROMPT #3: CONFIRMATION PARADOX
The problem is that the concept of a brown shoe and ravens do not appear to be logical to compare and come to a conclusion, “all ravens are black”. By claiming a brown shoe, it does only confirm that “all non-black things are non-ravens” since the brown shoe is not black and it is not raven. However, there is zero correlation between shoe and raven. If it were to bring the example of other kinds of bird, that seems more logical and appropriate. Personally, the denial of equivalence condition appears to be the most favorable solution since it eliminates us to generalize things too broadly which possibly brings the absurdity to the argument.
A substantive post is generally >150 words and introduces a new idea or is a meaningful response toanother person’s post. When responding to another person’s post, please either expand the thought, addadditional insights, or respectfully disagree and explain why.